511–520 of 659 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author of this comment has a history of attacking the Chinese government: >This is ridiculous equivocation between a democratic society with a rule of law and an authoritarian regime. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the Chinese government has an interest in data owned by foreign nationals that they could gain access to.
Ad hominem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a substantive point relevant to what the parent said here?
How is a commenter's potential conflict of interest not relevant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a substantive point relevant to what the parent said here?
How is a commenter's potential conflict of interest not relevant?
At worse you could argue that the poster is biased, but then in this types of geopolitical discussions who isn't? Certainly not me.
Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another country. Who cares? I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions. It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but th…
(Almost?) All countries have a similar approval process in the parliament. Usually the president has enough votes in the parliament or has an informal arrangement with the opposition leaders to ensure the approval.
For example, Iran never ratified the 2013 treaty with Argentina. It was approved by the Argentinean Parliament, but it was never approved by the Iranian Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding_be... more info in the Spanish version (autotranslation): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=htt...
[Disclaimer: I'm from Argentina. I didn't like the treaty, but nobody asked for my opinion.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But arresting foreign nationals in other countries for violating US sanctions? In this case, the other country in question is Canada, which has made its own sovereign decision to also sanction Iran. Extradition treaties, including the US-Canada one, require that the conduct involved be a crime in both jurisdictions. If the Canadian courts decide that what she did is not a crime under Canadian law, she will get off.…
Worth mentioning that Canada has its own history of concerns with Huawei due to the Nortel debacle: https://www.afr.com/technology/web/security/how-chinese-hack...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is a commenter's potential conflict of interest not relevant?
Everyone technically has a conflict of interest or premeditated motivation. An argument should stand on its own merit, regardless of who makes it. Analyzing anything other than the argument is immature.
Yet sometimes it leads to a better outcome than just analysis of the argument alone. Context is real. Context matters. Automatically disregarding real information on the grounds of "maturity" ideology can lead to a worse outcome, so it doesn't seem like the best course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is an extremely dangeruous move on the side of the Trump administration. This is supposed to be about Iran? Arresting the daugther of Huawei's founder definately makes it seem like there is more going on. How is any significant American business man flying through Hong Kong airport supposed to feel right now?
And I am pretty sure that the mullahs in Tehran are laughing in their beards over the US picking fights with China (and maybe the EU) over the Iran boycots. At least when this is the way it is done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think THIS proves the US is not a trustworthy nation? Why choose to ignore the last 100+ years of the US's backstory and focus on this rather minor setback to make such a bold statement? I would imagine any amount of trust we had left was entirely exhausted more than 40 years ago, during the Nixon shock [0] and Exorbitant privilege [1]. Surely, you realize the US earns its status on the global stage via its viole…
>You think THIS proves the US is not a trustworthy nation? Yes >Why choose to ignore the last 100+ years of the US's backstory I was born in '93 so what happened 100 years ago isn't much of a concern for me. >and focus on this rather minor setback to make such a bold statement? Calling climate change a chinese hoax and exiting a global climate deal is not a minor setback. Destroying the trust that Obama built over 8…
Newtonian physics. World War II. Penicillin. A lot of things that happened a long time ago shape your reality today. This is not related to the Huawei case, but I wish more people would take into account how their actions might affect those living 100 years in the future.